The unfortunate reality is as you say - the numbers mean they're taking the wrong message from this, and will undoubtedly take the path of least resistance again when they do it again next year with, I'm guessing, The Music Man or Oklahoma!

Jackman already did Oklahoma! for television. I seem to remember "family friendly" or something of that nature. I would nominate Oliver!, The King and I, or, if they were being adventurous, Peter Pan (grandparents might be able to talk this one up for grandkids).

The unfortunate reality is as you say - the numbers mean they're taking the wrong message from this, and will undoubtedly take the path of least resistance again when they do it again next year with, I'm guessing, The Music Man or Oklahoma!

Jackman already did Oklahoma! for television. I seem to remember "family friendly" or something of that nature. I would nominate Oliver!, The King and I, or, if they were being adventurous, Peter Pan (grandparents might be able to talk this one up for grandkids).

...though the whole Indian business would be problematic.

There was never anything remotely salacious about the Broadway version of Oklahoma!. The made for TV movie version of the show, starring Hugh Jackman and most of the rest of the London revival's West End cast, differs from the Broadway version in that there are no trained ballet dancers in the TV movie's version of Laurie's dream. In the TV movie the cast members play themselves in Laurie's dream sequence but it is much simpler than Agnes De Mille's brilliant ballet, featured in the musical theater version. Other than that, I couldn't tell that it differed from the original stage version, although I have never made a line by line comparison.

"Music Man" has already been redone for television (starring Matthew Broderick and Kristin Chenoweth) and "Peter Pan" has been done for television at least twice (once starring Mary Martin, coincidentally Maria from the original "Sound of Music" — yes, I said it and I italicized it — and once starring her fellow Texan Sandy Duncan).

Other Broadway musicals I can think of that have already had made-for-television editions are "Gypsy," "Bye Bye Birdie," "Annie" (which featured Audra McDonald), "Carousel," "Once upon a Mattress," "Company," "South Pacific" twice (once starring Glenn Close and once as a taping of a minimalist stage production starring Reba McEntire; again, the lead role was originated on Broadway by Mary Martin), "Oklahoma!" as already mentioned, and of course three productions of "Cinderella" [the original starring Julie Andrews (Maria of the 1965 film of SOM), made for TV long before it was ever produced on stage, and remakes starring Lesley Ann Warren and Brandy Norwood].

However, none of those, not even the 1957 "Cinderella," aired live as they were being performed.

there are few actors I dislike more than Mandy Patinkin - anything he's in would be a big turnoff for me. When he was younger he seemed to have a wider range, both acting and vocal now he's a one note dude.

As to what they should do next year, nothing jumps out at me. Odds are it will be family friendly, don't think they do anything too out there like Hairspray or such.

I wonder if there's a rights issue. When I posted above about the made-for-television productions of Broadway musicals I knew of, the absence of any Lerner & Loewe works really stood out.

You could be right about that. A little research on IMDB reveals that there has not been a TV movie based on Lerner and Loewe's musicals since they died, Lerner in 1986 and Loewe in 1988. I guess whoever owns the rights these days has decided not to allow that sort of thing. There was a production of Camelot on an episode of Live From Lincoln Center in 2008 but that was a filmed version of a stage production, not a made for TV movie.

Well, Dogfood, as a kid I watched the [1960] Mary Martin / Cyril Ritchard "Peter Pan" every year, and it was always identical, so if it did air live, it did only once. The broadcasts in later years were reruns of the first one with that cast until the Sandy Duncan version came out, and I'm positive it was prerecorded.

Thank you, Alan. I wouldn't recall that much detail from 1956 and certainly not from 1955, and may very well have seen neither of those. 1960 does sound right as the year for the version that was rerun annually for a while.

Nope. The '55 and '56 broadcasts of Mary Martin's Peter Pan were done live, and there are kinetoscopes that show the differences. They taped the '60 broadcast because then they could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dattier

Thank you, Alan. I wouldn't recall that much detail from 1956 and certainly not from 1955, and may very well have seen neither of those. 1960 does sound right as the year for the version that was rerun annually for a while.

Yeah, I too appreciate having confirmed that the early Mary Martin versions of Peter Pan were live productions. I thought I had remembered that but wasn't certain.

Did anybody else notice that IMDb lists this as having stereo audio? If it's true, that might explain why so many people complained about the sound, but I wonder how IMDb would know what the indended mix was.

I loved the first Peter Pan, even though I would have been four. When it was presented again I knew it was different because the dog did different things. Wiki says the second version was a color broadcast and it was a big deal. The third was definitely in color.

I think it could really go over big if they did it again. Mixed races of children for the lost boys, Native American children for the Indians- it might could be done in a way that was not terribly offensive. And the songs are terrific.

I loved the first Peter Pan, even though I would have been four. When it was presented again I knew it was different because the dog did different things. Wiki says the second version was a color broadcast and it was a big deal. The third was definitely in color.

I think it could really go over big if they did it again. Mixed races of children for the lost boys, Native American children for the Indians- it might could be done in a way that was not terribly offensive. And the songs are terrific.

I agree. I saw all three Martin broadcasts and let me tell you, when Peter Pan first flies through that window and the music wells up, that moment was and is pure magic - the goosebump type. Martin and Ritchard would be hard to replace, but I'd like to see it tried.

I wonder wat the break down is on why people watched. What percentage watched because it was SOM and who watched for Carrie? That may be the telling factor in what they do next year. If the artist is the draw they can get by with a lesser cost play, if not they may have to pony up $$ and go for a well know production.

I wonder wat the break down is on why people watched. What percentage watched because it was SOM and who watched for Carrie? That may be the telling factor in what they do next year. If the artist is the draw they can get by with a lesser cost play, if not they may have to pony up $$ and go for a well know production.

Not sure about nationally but in my family it was probably a 80/20, 80% tuned in for Carrie, 20% for SOM, I think it was a wise move for NBC and I doubt they would have gotten 1/2 the audience with a technically better lesser known lead.

For anyone interested, the 1965 Julie Andrews movie of SOM will be airing this Sunday 12/22 6pm-10pm CT on ABC(over 1hr of commercials as the movie is only 174 min according to IMDb).

I agree. I saw all three Martin broadcasts and let me tell you, when Peter Pan first flies through that window and the music wells up, that moment was and is pure magic - the goosebump type. Martin and Ritchard would be hard to replace, but I'd like to see it tried.

Glad you mentioned the incomparable Cyril Ritchard. His performances as Captain Hook were wonderful. He, like Mary Martin, created his role on Broadway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

Well, Once upon a Time may have killed Pan for me permanently.

I wonder wat the break down is on why people watched. What percentage watched because it was SOM and who watched for Carrie? That may be the telling factor in what they do next year. If the artist is the draw they can get by with a lesser cost play, if not they may have to pony up $$ and go for a well know production.

In my case it was 50-50. I love musical theater and will take a chance on watching any televised production of a Broadway musical. I also love Carrie Underwood and not just because she is an Oklahoma girl. She is beautiful, has a great voice, and can really sell a song. So what if she can't act, nobody's perfect.

I wonder if they'll be using the remaster from the Blu ray for this broadcast.

I would hope so, considering it will air on ABC HD. I recently purchased a BD set of the original so I won't be recording this airing. Also my local ABC channels HD is pathetic, 720p and with all it's sub-channels about the bitrate of a good DVD, I'm sure it will look nothing like my 1080p DL BD

I wonder if they'll be using the remaster from the Blu ray for this broadcast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjeff

I would hope so, considering it will air on ABC HD. I recently purchased a BD set of the original so I won't be recording this airing. Also my local ABC channels HD is pathetic, 720p and with all it's sub-channels about the bitrate of a good DVD, I'm sure it will look nothing like my 1080p DL BD

ABC doesn't need the Blu-Ray to air it in HD. They can transfer the original film to HD. (Which is probably the same process that the people who made the Blu-Ray used, but ABC won't get their version off the Blu-Ray.)

Max VranyAll opinions are my own unless otherwise specified.I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of any information given.GO Pack GO! On Wisconsin! Go Brewers!

The wife and I just watched this on our Tivo last night and thought it was great all around. Big kudos to Carrie and the cast for having the balls to step up and do this live in front of a national audience. We both thought the singing and acting was good throughout and did not expect, in any way, a Broadway-class musical coming into this. We simply wanted to see a good rendition of Sound of Music and got exactly what we wanted - we both thought Carrie picked up the mantle from Julie very well.

IMO people that want to criticize Carrie for her performance, or lack of pipes, or whatever really don't understand the audience that NBC was shooting for. Anyone expecting Broadway quality here came in with the wrong expectations, because IMO no one claimed it would be at that level nor does most of the audience care. In the future I agree with others that NBC could sign up with the Met or any Broadway house for live broadcasts if they want, but that's not what they're doing right now.

And that's ok by me, because we don't know any better (never seen a Broadway show live). We just want to watch a good show, and other than the background hiss (which didn't bother the wife even though I could clearly here it on the surround) that's exactly what we got.

I wonder if they'll be using the remaster from the Blu ray for this broadcast.

I would hope so, considering it will air on ABC HD. I recently purchased a BD set of the original so I won't be recording this airing. Also my local ABC channels HD is pathetic, 720p and with all it's sub-channels about the bitrate of a good DVD, I'm sure it will look nothing like my 1080p DL BD

Well I finally got around to comparing my BD version of the original SOM and my Tivo's copy off my local ABC channel, all I can say is Absolutely no comparison, next to my BD, ABCs airing looked like crap! Not only was ABCs missing a ton of detail but they cropped the picture to get rid of the letterbox, in turn missing LOTS of material, what a butcher job! If I had never seen the BD I might have thought ABCs version was "OK" but next to the BD it ws almost unwatchable. I thought network TV was moving away from cropping movies, if they'd do it to a classic like SOM I'd think they'd do it to anything